http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books?hl=en
rec.arts.books@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* The Books That Founded D&D - 25 messages, 10 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/8ba57c69243a3499?hl=en
* INDIA SAYS "Fuck You" To Global Warming INDUSTRY! (So Do We!) - 1 messages,
1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/d161d1e5dcce849c?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: The Books That Founded D&D
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/8ba57c69243a3499?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 25 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 23 2009 12:37 pm
From: Juho Julkunen
In article <7n05k1F3juaajU1@mid.individual.net>, Marko Amnell
(marko.amnell@kolumbus.fi) says...
>
> "David Johnston" <david@block.net> wrote in message
> 42mlg5hgafqibgnm9klgj4qn6plul3sbrg@4ax.com...
> > On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:42:42 +0200, "Marko Amnell"
> > <marko.amnell@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>"Endymion9" <endymion91@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >>iL2dnWa7dtAYbpTWnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> >>> "Patok" <crazy.div.patok@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:he83co$arv$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> >>>> Endymion9 wrote:
> >>>>> I had never heard of Fritz Leiber of Fahryd and the Grey Mouser until
> >>>>> I
> >>>>> began playing D&D and heard that those books were an influence.
> >>>>> Immediately went out and read the entire series and loved them.
> >>>>> Always
> >>>>> grateful to D&D for that.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks to you and Mike! Leiber was the only one I had never heard
> >>>> of,
> >>>> and had not tried to read. I'll give him a try, now.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Fafhryd and the Grey Mouser are the anti-Conan. I had just read several
> >>> of Robert E. Howard's books (which I loved) before reading Lieber.
> >>> Whereas Conan can beat 40 men with swords all by himself, Fafyhrd or the
> >>> Mouser can't beat two adequate swordsmen by themselves. That and
> >>> Lieber's
> >>> humor are the big differences in those books, which as I said, I love
> >>> both
> >>> kinds. Don't prefer one over the other.
> >>
> >>REH is actually more realistic.
> >
> > No, he really isn't.
> >
> > A master swordsman can
> >>defeat many less skilled opponents in combat. To quote
> >>Miyamoto Musashi in _The Book of Five Rings_:
> >>
> >>"If he attains the virtue of the long sword, one man can beat
> >>ten men.
> >
> > If he's wearing armour and the ten men are untrained peasants.
> > Otherwise not a bloody hope.
>
> Miyamoto Musashi was one of the greatest swordsmen of
> all times. On what basis do you question his opinion?
> You've probably never even held a real sword in your
> hands. Your experience with combat is limited to
> rolling twenty-sided dice.
>
> Also, the Roman Legions regularly defeated enemy armies
> of warriors that were several times larger, winning due
> to superior discipline and training.
They often took a beating, too. But it is utterly irrelevant since they
were fighting in organized units rather than singly.
If you are a lone swordsman against multiple opponents, you are almost
certainly done for, no matter how good you are. Chiefly because you
only have one sword and can only face one direction.
--
Juho Julkunen
== 2 of 25 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 23 2009 12:49 pm
From: "Marko Amnell"
"Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> wrote in message
heeqee$568$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Marko Amnell wrote:
>
>> So, let's examine this passage. The untrained sailors are
>> "cut down to a man" by the savage barbarians, which
>> is perfectly realistic. But faced with Conan, who is
>> the greatest swordsman of his age and is wearing chainmail
>> armour while the barbarians are wearing no armour, the
>> fight takes a different turn.
>
> Is he wearing a helmet too? If not, a rock to the back of
> the head would work pretty well.
Of course he is wearing a helmet. It's only the Conan
from Marvel Comics and the movies who wears just
a loincloth. Howard's original Conan is fully armoured
when he is expecting combat.
>> Conan is "the center of a
>> hurricane of stabbing spears and lashing clubs" but
>> he is protected by his armour ("Spears bent on his
>> armor")
>
> Bent on chainmail? What are they made of, aluminum foil?
Actually, chainmail is highly resistant to blows from
bladed weapons. In his book _Viking Weapons and Warfare_
Kim Siddorn describes experiments carried out on chainmail
armour which showed that not only can it withstand very hard
spear thrusts without being punctured, but some of the spears
used in the experiments were bent during the tests.
>> and his skill, training and experience allow
>> him to dodge and avoid the spears and clubs (the
>> weapons "swished empty air").
>
> Including ones coming from behind? That's some dodging.
He was moving constantly, and Howard writes that,
quite wisely, Conan eventually positioned himself
with "his back against the mast" to avoid being
attacked from behind.
>> Quite realistically, he
>> manages to kill several warriors. But thown spears
>> are another matter entirely, and the barbarians realize
>> that to kill Conan they must all throw their spears
>> together.
>
> Right. He could dodge three at a time, but not ten.
Conan killed at least ten men in that fight, but he
was not fighting ten men at exactly the same moment.
Much like a boxer in the ring, he was moving all
the time. As Howard writes, he "moved in a
blinding blur of steel."
== 3 of 25 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 23 2009 1:28 pm
From: "Marko Amnell"
"Juho Julkunen" <giaotanj@hotmail.com> wrote in message
MPG.25751ee94da6b92f989819@news.kolumbus.fi...
> In article <7n05k1F3juaajU1@mid.individual.net>, Marko Amnell
> (marko.amnell@kolumbus.fi) says...
>>
>> "David Johnston" <david@block.net> wrote in message
>> 42mlg5hgafqibgnm9klgj4qn6plul3sbrg@4ax.com...
>> > On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:42:42 +0200, "Marko Amnell"
>> > <marko.amnell@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>"Endymion9" <endymion91@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> >>iL2dnWa7dtAYbpTWnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> >>> "Patok" <crazy.div.patok@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >>> news:he83co$arv$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> >>>> Endymion9 wrote:
>> >>>>> I had never heard of Fritz Leiber of Fahryd and the Grey Mouser
>> >>>>> until
>> >>>>> I
>> >>>>> began playing D&D and heard that those books were an influence.
>> >>>>> Immediately went out and read the entire series and loved them.
>> >>>>> Always
>> >>>>> grateful to D&D for that.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Thanks to you and Mike! Leiber was the only one I had never
>> >>>> heard
>> >>>> of,
>> >>>> and had not tried to read. I'll give him a try, now.
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Fafhryd and the Grey Mouser are the anti-Conan. I had just read
>> >>> several
>> >>> of Robert E. Howard's books (which I loved) before reading Lieber.
>> >>> Whereas Conan can beat 40 men with swords all by himself, Fafyhrd or
>> >>> the
>> >>> Mouser can't beat two adequate swordsmen by themselves. That and
>> >>> Lieber's
>> >>> humor are the big differences in those books, which as I said, I love
>> >>> both
>> >>> kinds. Don't prefer one over the other.
>> >>
>> >>REH is actually more realistic.
>> >
>> > No, he really isn't.
>> >
>> > A master swordsman can
>> >>defeat many less skilled opponents in combat. To quote
>> >>Miyamoto Musashi in _The Book of Five Rings_:
>> >>
>> >>"If he attains the virtue of the long sword, one man can beat
>> >>ten men.
>> >
>> > If he's wearing armour and the ten men are untrained peasants.
>> > Otherwise not a bloody hope.
>>
>> Miyamoto Musashi was one of the greatest swordsmen of
>> all times. On what basis do you question his opinion?
>> You've probably never even held a real sword in your
>> hands. Your experience with combat is limited to
>> rolling twenty-sided dice.
>>
>> Also, the Roman Legions regularly defeated enemy armies
>> of warriors that were several times larger, winning due
>> to superior discipline and training.
>
> They often took a beating, too. But it is utterly irrelevant since they
> were fighting in organized units rather than singly.
>
> If you are a lone swordsman against multiple opponents, you are almost
> certainly done for, no matter how good you are. Chiefly because you
> only have one sword and can only face one direction.
That is absolutely not true. You are completely ignoring
movement in combat. In fact, there are many examples from
military history in which a single warrior defeated a large
number of opponents. Here is a list of some from the book
_Essential Militaria_ by Nicholas Hobbes (pp. 103-105).
I will exclude the cases in which the lone warrior stood
on a bridge, thus forcing all of his opponents to attack
from the same direction.
"Chorsamantis the Avar: During the siege of Rome
in AD 538, the warrior became maddened by drink
and wounds and rode out alone to the barbarian
camp. He was confronted by twenty enemy horsemen,
whom he dispatched before being overwhelmed.
"Sir William Marshall (1146-1219): By common
consent the greatest warrior of his age. His first
engagement was the Battle of Drincourt in 1167
where, though his warhorse was killed beneath
him, he managed to defeat an estimated forty other
knights in succession without pause.
"Pedro Francisco (died 1831): The 6ft 6ins, 280 lb
Portuguese American was the most famous private
soldier of the Revolutionary War. In 1779 Francisco
captured the British flag at Stony Point, the British
Army's stronghold on the Hudson River, and during
one short engagement killed eleven enemy troops
using his 6-foot-long broadsword. George Washington
said that 'Without him we would have lost two crucial
battles, perhaps the War, and with it our freedom. He
was truly a One-Man Army.'"
== 4 of 25 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 23 2009 1:47 pm
From: "Marko Amnell"
"Juho Julkunen" <giaotanj@hotmail.com> wrote in message
MPG.25751ee94da6b92f989819@news.kolumbus.fi...
> In article <7n05k1F3juaajU1@mid.individual.net>, Marko Amnell
> (marko.amnell@kolumbus.fi) says...
>>
>> "David Johnston" <david@block.net> wrote in message
>> 42mlg5hgafqibgnm9klgj4qn6plul3sbrg@4ax.com...
>> > On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:42:42 +0200, "Marko Amnell"
>> > <marko.amnell@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>"Endymion9" <endymion91@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> >>iL2dnWa7dtAYbpTWnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> >>> "Patok" <crazy.div.patok@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >>> news:he83co$arv$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> >>>> Endymion9 wrote:
>> >>>>> I had never heard of Fritz Leiber of Fahryd and the Grey Mouser
>> >>>>> until
>> >>>>> I
>> >>>>> began playing D&D and heard that those books were an influence.
>> >>>>> Immediately went out and read the entire series and loved them.
>> >>>>> Always
>> >>>>> grateful to D&D for that.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Thanks to you and Mike! Leiber was the only one I had never
>> >>>> heard
>> >>>> of,
>> >>>> and had not tried to read. I'll give him a try, now.
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Fafhryd and the Grey Mouser are the anti-Conan. I had just read
>> >>> several
>> >>> of Robert E. Howard's books (which I loved) before reading Lieber.
>> >>> Whereas Conan can beat 40 men with swords all by himself, Fafyhrd or
>> >>> the
>> >>> Mouser can't beat two adequate swordsmen by themselves. That and
>> >>> Lieber's
>> >>> humor are the big differences in those books, which as I said, I love
>> >>> both
>> >>> kinds. Don't prefer one over the other.
>> >>
>> >>REH is actually more realistic.
>> >
>> > No, he really isn't.
>> >
>> > A master swordsman can
>> >>defeat many less skilled opponents in combat. To quote
>> >>Miyamoto Musashi in _The Book of Five Rings_:
>> >>
>> >>"If he attains the virtue of the long sword, one man can beat
>> >>ten men.
>> >
>> > If he's wearing armour and the ten men are untrained peasants.
>> > Otherwise not a bloody hope.
>>
>> Miyamoto Musashi was one of the greatest swordsmen of
>> all times. On what basis do you question his opinion?
>> You've probably never even held a real sword in your
>> hands. Your experience with combat is limited to
>> rolling twenty-sided dice.
>>
>> Also, the Roman Legions regularly defeated enemy armies
>> of warriors that were several times larger, winning due
>> to superior discipline and training.
>
> They often took a beating, too. But it is utterly irrelevant since
> they were fighting in organized units rather than singly.
On the contrary, it is completely relevant because
the full quote I gave (before it was snipped out of
recognition) reads:
"If he attains the virtue of the long sword, one man can beat
ten men. Just as one man can beat ten, so a hundred men can
beat a thousand, and a thousand can beat ten thousand."
http://www.bookoffiverings.com/EarthBook.htm
Musashi wishes to draw certain analogies between single
combat and military strategy and tactics.
== 5 of 25 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 23 2009 3:10 pm
From: Shawn Wilson
On Nov 23, 1:37 pm, Juho Julkunen <giaot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> If you are a lone swordsman against multiple opponents, you are almost
> certainly done for, no matter how good you are. Chiefly because you
> only have one sword and can only face one direction.
On the other hand Cyrano De Bergerac (real and fictional) took on 100
swordsmen and won. Admitted he was a great swordsman, and they were
hacks, hired to overwhelm him with numbers rather than skill. And he
only killed a few, mostly after finding a place to fight from that
only allowed one at a time to approach him and only from the front.
== 6 of 25 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 23 2009 3:42 pm
From: "Mike Schilling"
Marko Amnell wrote:
> "David Johnston" <david@block.net> wrote in message
> 42mlg5hgafqibgnm9klgj4qn6plul3sbrg@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:42:42 +0200, "Marko Amnell"
>> <marko.amnell@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Endymion9" <endymion91@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> iL2dnWa7dtAYbpTWnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>> "Patok" <crazy.div.patok@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:he83co$arv$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>> Endymion9 wrote:
>>>>>> I had never heard of Fritz Leiber of Fahryd and the Grey Mouser
>>>>>> until I
>>>>>> began playing D&D and heard that those books were an influence.
>>>>>> Immediately went out and read the entire series and loved them.
>>>>>> Always
>>>>>> grateful to D&D for that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks to you and Mike! Leiber was the only one I had never
>>>>> heard of,
>>>>> and had not tried to read. I'll give him a try, now.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Fafhryd and the Grey Mouser are the anti-Conan. I had just read
>>>> several of Robert E. Howard's books (which I loved) before
>>>> reading
>>>> Lieber. Whereas Conan can beat 40 men with swords all by himself,
>>>> Fafyhrd or the Mouser can't beat two adequate swordsmen by
>>>> themselves. That and Lieber's
>>>> humor are the big differences in those books, which as I said, I
>>>> love both
>>>> kinds. Don't prefer one over the other.
>>>
>>> REH is actually more realistic.
>>
>> No, he really isn't.
>>
>> A master swordsman can
>>> defeat many less skilled opponents in combat. To quote
>>> Miyamoto Musashi in _The Book of Five Rings_:
>>>
>>> "If he attains the virtue of the long sword, one man can beat
>>> ten men.
>>
>> If he's wearing armour and the ten men are untrained peasants.
>> Otherwise not a bloody hope.
>
> Miyamoto Musashi was one of the greatest swordsmen of
> all times. On what basis do you question his opinion?
> You've probably never even held a real sword in your
> hands. Your experience with combat is limited to
> rolling twenty-sided dice.
>
> Also, the Roman Legions regularly defeated enemy armies
> of warriors that were several times larger, winning due
> to superior discipline and training.
And there's no real difference between 1000 men, highly trained tio
fight as a unit, taking on 300 and one man taking on ten.
== 7 of 25 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 23 2009 3:48 pm
From: "Mike Schilling"
Mike Schilling wrote:
> And there's no real difference between 1000 men, highly trained tio
> fight as a unit, taking on 300
3000, of course.
>and one man taking on ten.
== 8 of 25 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 23 2009 4:59 pm
From: "Marko Amnell"
"Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> wrote in message
hef71d$lnh$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Mike Schilling wrote:
>> And there's no real difference between 1000 men, highly trained tio
>> fight as a unit, taking on 300
>
> 3000, of course.
>
>>and one man taking on ten.
Of course there is a huge difference. As I said,
Musashi wants to draw analogies between
single combat and military strategy and tactics.
== 9 of 25 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 23 2009 5:15 pm
From: "Marko Amnell"
"Shawn Wilson" <ikonoqlast@gmail.com> wrote in message
c32ab2ea-6032-4ab3-a1fd-a4fd4cbc689f@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>>On Nov 23, 1:37 pm, Juho Julkunen <giaot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> If you are a lone swordsman against multiple opponents, you are almost
>> certainly done for, no matter how good you are. Chiefly because you
>> only have one sword and can only face one direction.
>
> On the other hand Cyrano De Bergerac (real and fictional) took on 100
> swordsmen and won. Admitted he was a great swordsman, and they were
> hacks, hired to overwhelm him with numbers rather than skill. And he
> only killed a few, mostly after finding a place to fight from that
> only allowed one at a time to approach him and only from the front.
If we allow cases where the lone warrior was defending a
bridge so that his attackers could only attack him from a single
direction, then there are some other famous cases of a
single warrior defeating many opponents. It is by no
means clear that in all the cases the opponents approached
in a single file. It is entirely possible that the lone defender
had to face two or three (or even more) opponents at the same
time, but they all did approach from the same direction. Here
are these cases from _Essential Militaria_ by Nicholas Hobbes.
"Horatius: The Roman sentry on the Tiber River who in
508 BC held off the Etruscan army singlehandedly, long
enough for his comrades to destroy the crossing.
"The Lone Viking: In 1066, Harold Godwinson's Saxon
army marched to York to fight off Harald Hardrada's
Norwegian invasion. Harold caught his enemies by
surprise, but had to cross Stamford Bridge to get to
them. However, the bridge was held by a single
Viking champion who slew the first forty men who
tried to advance. By the time a boat had been floated
under the bridge and a long spear thrust upwards the
planks to kill him, the warrior had given his comrades
enough time to ready their arms and armour and prepare
their battle formations.
"Benkei (died 1189): The Japanese warrior monk stood
on the Gojo Bridge in Kyoto and challenged all comers.
According to legend he defeated 999 warriors in single
combat before being beaten."
== 10 of 25 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 23 2009 6:09 pm
From: Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 03:15:38 +0200, "Marko Amnell"
<marko.amnell@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>If we allow cases where the lone warrior was defending a
>bridge so that his attackers could only attack him from a single
>direction, then there are some other famous cases of a
>single warrior defeating many opponents. It is by no
>means clear that in all the cases the opponents approached
>in a single file. It is entirely possible that the lone defender
>had to face two or three (or even more) opponents at the same
>time, but they all did approach from the same direction. Here
>are these cases from _Essential Militaria_ by Nicholas Hobbes.
>
>"Horatius: The Roman sentry on the Tiber River who in
>508 BC held off the Etruscan army singlehandedly, long
>enough for his comrades to destroy the crossing.
Um... that's not right. First off, he wasn't really a sentry, but
more importantly, his sons fought with him; they would switch off
defending the bridge, so that the Etruscans couldn't just tire him
out.
The Horatii were among the great heroes of Rome, so I'm surprised
Hobbes would get that wrong.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
I'm selling my comic collection -- see http://www.watt-evans.com/comics.html
I'm serializing a novel at http://www.watt-evans.com/realmsoflight0.html
== 11 of 25 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 23 2009 6:09 pm
From: David Johnston
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 10:54:00 -0800, "Mike Schilling"
<mscottschilling@hotmail.com> wrote:
>David Johnston wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:42:42 +0200, "Marko Amnell"
>> <marko.amnell@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>>> A master swordsman can
>>> defeat many less skilled opponents in combat. To quote
>>> Miyamoto Musashi in _The Book of Five Rings_:
>>>
>>> "If he attains the virtue of the long sword, one man can beat
>>> ten men.
>>
>> If he's wearing armour and the ten men are untrained peasants.
>
>None of whom think of sneaking up behind the swordsman and braining
>him with a rock.
>
>
The armor provides reasonable security against that sort of thing.
== 12 of 25 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 23 2009 6:17 pm
From: David Johnston
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:20:20 +0200, "Marko Amnell"
<marko.amnell@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>
>"David Johnston" <david@block.net> wrote in message
>42mlg5hgafqibgnm9klgj4qn6plul3sbrg@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:42:42 +0200, "Marko Amnell"
>> <marko.amnell@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Endymion9" <endymion91@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>iL2dnWa7dtAYbpTWnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>> "Patok" <crazy.div.patok@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:he83co$arv$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>> Endymion9 wrote:
>>>>>> I had never heard of Fritz Leiber of Fahryd and the Grey Mouser until
>>>>>> I
>>>>>> began playing D&D and heard that those books were an influence.
>>>>>> Immediately went out and read the entire series and loved them.
>>>>>> Always
>>>>>> grateful to D&D for that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks to you and Mike! Leiber was the only one I had never heard
>>>>> of,
>>>>> and had not tried to read. I'll give him a try, now.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Fafhryd and the Grey Mouser are the anti-Conan. I had just read several
>>>> of Robert E. Howard's books (which I loved) before reading Lieber.
>>>> Whereas Conan can beat 40 men with swords all by himself, Fafyhrd or the
>>>> Mouser can't beat two adequate swordsmen by themselves. That and
>>>> Lieber's
>>>> humor are the big differences in those books, which as I said, I love
>>>> both
>>>> kinds. Don't prefer one over the other.
>>>
>>>REH is actually more realistic.
>>
>> No, he really isn't.
>>
>> A master swordsman can
>>>defeat many less skilled opponents in combat. To quote
>>>Miyamoto Musashi in _The Book of Five Rings_:
>>>
>>>"If he attains the virtue of the long sword, one man can beat
>>>ten men.
>>
>> If he's wearing armour and the ten men are untrained peasants.
>> Otherwise not a bloody hope.
>
>Miyamoto Musashi was one of the greatest swordsmen of
>all times. On what basis do you question his opinion?
I don't question his opinion. For all I know, he was talking about
the one samurai versus 10 peasant levies. I think he probably was.
>Also, the Roman Legions regularly defeated enemy armies
>of warriors that were several times larger, winning due
>to superior discipline and training.
Roman legions fought in formation against relatively disorganized
opponents with inferior equipment and discipline most of the time.
Those are great force multipliers. A single legionaire against 3
barbarians would be ripped to pieces while a thousand legionaires
against 10 thousand barbarians would hold the line long after the foe
broke. Usually.
== 13 of 25 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 23 2009 6:18 pm
From: Mark Reichert
On Nov 23, 1:18 pm, t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) wrote:
> In article <heelo9$f9...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>
>
>
>
>
> Mike Schilling <mscottschill...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >David Johnston wrote:
> >> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:42:42 +0200, "Marko Amnell"
> >> <marko.amn...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
> >>> A master swordsman can
> >>> defeat many less skilled opponents in combat. To quote
> >>> Miyamoto Musashi in _The Book of Five Rings_:
>
> >>> "If he attains the virtue of the long sword, one man can beat
> >>> ten men.
>
> >> If he's wearing armour and the ten men are untrained peasants.
>
> >None of whom think of sneaking up behind the swordsman and braining
> >him with a rock.
>
> IIRC, that was one of the parts of _Guns Germs & Steel_ that seemed least
> convincing -- that steel made a handful of Spaniards *so* overwhelming that
> the conquest of Latin America was inevitable.
You did notice the other two parts of the title, didn't you?
What's with the Diamond hate these days? I remember the book getting
a better reception here when it came out.
== 14 of 25 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 23 2009 6:19 pm
From: Mark Reichert
On Nov 23, 2:28 pm, Juho Julkunen <giaot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <7n05f9F3kj7e...@mid.individual.net>, Ted Nolan <tednolan>
> (t...@loft.tnolan.com) says...
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <heelo9$f9...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > Mike Schilling <mscottschill...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >David Johnston wrote:
> > >> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:42:42 +0200, "Marko Amnell"
> > >> <marko.amn...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
> > >>> A master swordsman can
> > >>> defeat many less skilled opponents in combat. To quote
> > >>> Miyamoto Musashi in _The Book of Five Rings_:
>
> > >>> "If he attains the virtue of the long sword, one man can beat
> > >>> ten men.
>
> > >> If he's wearing armour and the ten men are untrained peasants.
>
> > >None of whom think of sneaking up behind the swordsman and braining
> > >him with a rock.
>
> > IIRC, that was one of the parts of _Guns Germs & Steel_ that seemed least
> > convincing -- that steel made a handful of Spaniards *so* overwhelming that
> > the conquest of Latin America was inevitable.
>
> You are being too moderate. Spaniard conquest of Latin America was
> apparently inevitable since their ancestors settled in Europe.
>
> But yeah, taking a fight seriously helps. It also helps if the guys
> you're fighting are so hated that lot of the people you run into are
> willing to lend a hand.
It helps even more if they're dropping like flies thanks to you coming
from a densely populated disease ridden place, and they not.
== 15 of 25 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 23 2009 6:56 pm
From: Gene Wirchenko
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:42:42 +0200, "Marko Amnell"
<marko.amnell@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
[snip]
>REH is actually more realistic. A master swordsman can
>defeat many less skilled opponents in combat. To quote
>Miyamoto Musashi in _The Book of Five Rings_:
>
>"If he attains the virtue of the long sword, one man can beat
>ten men. Just as one man can beat ten, so a hundred men can
>beat a thousand, and a thousand can beat ten thousand."
>http://www.bookoffiverings.com/EarthBook.htm
Infinite scaling does not work in IT.
>If Lieber were right, there would be no point in training
>to fight with a sword.
Suppose I only need to take out two opponents.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
== 16 of 25 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 23 2009 7:11 pm
From: David Johnston
On 23 Nov 2009 19:18:01 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
<tednolan>) wrote:
>In article <heelo9$f94$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
>Mike Schilling <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>David Johnston wrote:
>>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:42:42 +0200, "Marko Amnell"
>>> <marko.amnell@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>>>> A master swordsman can
>>>> defeat many less skilled opponents in combat. To quote
>>>> Miyamoto Musashi in _The Book of Five Rings_:
>>>>
>>>> "If he attains the virtue of the long sword, one man can beat
>>>> ten men.
>>>
>>> If he's wearing armour and the ten men are untrained peasants.
>>
>>None of whom think of sneaking up behind the swordsman and braining
>>him with a rock.
>>
>
>IIRC, that was one of the parts of _Guns Germs & Steel_ that seemed least
>convincing -- that steel made a handful of Spaniards *so* overwhelming that
>the conquest of Latin America was inevitable.
Don't forget the guns and germs. And since the Spaniards did conquer
again and again the technological edge probably was good for something
or other.
== 17 of 25 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 23 2009 7:29 pm
From: goldfarb@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb)
In article <bsfmg5dlbsatgf295rdu4mo19036o40srn@news.eternal-september.org>,
Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 03:15:38 +0200, "Marko Amnell"
><marko.amnell@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>>"Horatius: The Roman sentry on the Tiber River who in
>>508 BC held off the Etruscan army singlehandedly, long
>>enough for his comrades to destroy the crossing.
>
>Um... that's not right. First off, he wasn't really a sentry, but
>more importantly, his sons fought with him; they would switch off
>defending the bridge, so that the Etruscans couldn't just tire him
>out.
>
>The Horatii were among the great heroes of Rome, so I'm surprised
>Hobbes would get that wrong.
Accounts vary, but none of the sources I can find in a quick search
say that Horatius Cocles was accompanied by sons. Are you thinking
of the triplet Horatii who fought the Curatii of Alba Longa? They
were much earlier.
(Livy for instance has Horatius companioned by two generals named
Spurius Larcius and Titus Herminius.)
--
David Goldfarb |"Poor dominoes. Your pretty empire took so long
goldfarb@ocf.berkeley.edu | to build. Now, with a snap of history's fingers...
goldfarb@csua.berkeley.edu | down it goes."
| -- Alan Moore, _V for Vendetta_
== 18 of 25 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 23 2009 8:32 pm
From: ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan )
In article <KtLGD7.1JJq@kithrup.com>,
David Goldfarb <goldfarb@ocf.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>In article <bsfmg5dlbsatgf295rdu4mo19036o40srn@news.eternal-september.org>,
>Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> wrote:
>>On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 03:15:38 +0200, "Marko Amnell"
>><marko.amnell@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>>>"Horatius: The Roman sentry on the Tiber River who in
>>>508 BC held off the Etruscan army singlehandedly, long
>>>enough for his comrades to destroy the crossing.
>>
>>Um... that's not right. First off, he wasn't really a sentry, but
>>more importantly, his sons fought with him; they would switch off
>>defending the bridge, so that the Etruscans couldn't just tire him
>>out.
>>
>>The Horatii were among the great heroes of Rome, so I'm surprised
>>Hobbes would get that wrong.
>
>Accounts vary, but none of the sources I can find in a quick search
>say that Horatius Cocles was accompanied by sons. Are you thinking
>of the triplet Horatii who fought the Curatii of Alba Longa? They
>were much earlier.
>
>(Livy for instance has Horatius companioned by two generals named
>Spurius Larcius and Titus Herminius.)
>
XXVI
But the Consul's brow was sad,
And the Consul's speech was low,
And darkly looked he at the wall,
And darkly at the foe.
``Their van will be upon us
Before the bridge goes down;
And if they once may win the bridge,
What hope to save the town?''
XXVII
Then out spake brave Horatius,
The Captain of the Gate:
``To every man upon this earth
Death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better
Than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers,
And the temples of his gods,
XXVIII
``And for the tender mother
Who dandled him to rest,
And for the wife who nurses
His baby at her breast,
And for the holy maidens
Who feed the eternal flame,
To save them from false Sextus
That wrought the deed of shame?
XXIX
``Haul down the bridge, Sir Consul,
With all the speed ye may;
I, with two more to help me,
Will hold the foe in play.
In yon strait path a thousand
May well be stopped by three.
Now who will stand on either hand,
And keep the bridge with me?''
XXX
Then out spake Spurius Lartius;
A Ramnian proud was he:
``Lo, I will stand at thy right hand,
And keep the bridge with thee.''
And out spake strong Herminius;
Of Titian blood was he:
``I will abide on thy left side,
And keep the bridge with thee.''
XXXI
``Horatius,'' quoth the Consul,
``As thou sayest, so let it be.''
And straight against that great array
Forth went the dauntless Three.
For Romans in Rome's quarrel
Spared neither land nor gold,
Nor son nor wife, nor limb nor life,
In the brave days of old.
Ted
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
== 19 of 25 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 23 2009 8:35 pm
From: ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan )
In article <1e760f48-ccc1-429d-a504-536917163b7d@h2g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>,
Mark Reichert <Mark_Reichert@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 23, 2:28 pm, Juho Julkunen <giaot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> In article <7n05f9F3kj7e...@mid.individual.net>, Ted Nolan <tednolan>
>> (t...@loft.tnolan.com) says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > In article <heelo9$f9...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> > Mike Schilling <mscottschill...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > >David Johnston wrote:
>> > >> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:42:42 +0200, "Marko Amnell"
>> > >> <marko.amn...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>> > >>> A master swordsman can
>> > >>> defeat many less skilled opponents in combat. To quote
>> > >>> Miyamoto Musashi in _The Book of Five Rings_:
>>
>> > >>> "If he attains the virtue of the long sword, one man can beat
>> > >>> ten men.
>>
>> > >> If he's wearing armour and the ten men are untrained peasants.
>>
>> > >None of whom think of sneaking up behind the swordsman and braining
>> > >him with a rock.
>>
>> > IIRC, that was one of the parts of _Guns Germs & Steel_ that seemed least
>> > convincing -- that steel made a handful of Spaniards *so* overwhelming that
>> > the conquest of Latin America was inevitable.
>>
>> You are being too moderate. Spaniard conquest of Latin America was
>> apparently inevitable since their ancestors settled in Europe.
>>
>> But yeah, taking a fight seriously helps. It also helps if the guys
>> you're fighting are so hated that lot of the people you run into are
>> willing to lend a hand.
>
>It helps even more if they're dropping like flies thanks to you coming
>from a densely populated disease ridden place, and they not.
>
Sure, but though I don't have the book to hand, I'm pretty sure he was
making very strong claims for "steel" even when "germs" had played out.
And by "very strong" I mean more than struck me as reasonable.
Ted
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
== 20 of 25 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 23 2009 8:38 pm
From: ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan )
In article <0d6677c7-878d-47ff-9fe7-fb02af56e1d0@33g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
Mark Reichert <Mark_Reichert@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 23, 1:18 pm, t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) wrote:
>> In article <heelo9$f9...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Mike Schilling <mscottschill...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >David Johnston wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:42:42 +0200, "Marko Amnell"
>> >> <marko.amn...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>> >>> A master swordsman can
>> >>> defeat many less skilled opponents in combat. To quote
>> >>> Miyamoto Musashi in _The Book of Five Rings_:
>>
>> >>> "If he attains the virtue of the long sword, one man can beat
>> >>> ten men.
>>
>> >> If he's wearing armour and the ten men are untrained peasants.
>>
>> >None of whom think of sneaking up behind the swordsman and braining
>> >him with a rock.
>>
>> IIRC, that was one of the parts of _Guns Germs & Steel_ that seemed least
>> convincing -- that steel made a handful of Spaniards *so* overwhelming that
>> the conquest of Latin America was inevitable.
>
>You did notice the other two parts of the title, didn't you?
>
>What's with the Diamond hate these days? I remember the book getting
>a better reception here when it came out.
>
I didn't hate it (or him). I just thought he went out on a limb for steel.
I can't recall the exact spot, but I remember thinking, "well, sure they
couldn't take them head on, but Fabian tactics should have worked".
Not that I claim any expertise in history *or* tactics.
Ted
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
== 21 of 25 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 23 2009 8:51 pm
From: Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 03:29:31 GMT, goldfarb@ocf.berkeley.edu (David
Goldfarb) wrote:
>In article <bsfmg5dlbsatgf295rdu4mo19036o40srn@news.eternal-september.org>,
>Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> wrote:
>>On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 03:15:38 +0200, "Marko Amnell"
>><marko.amnell@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>>>"Horatius: The Roman sentry on the Tiber River who in
>>>508 BC held off the Etruscan army singlehandedly, long
>>>enough for his comrades to destroy the crossing.
>>
>>Um... that's not right. First off, he wasn't really a sentry, but
>>more importantly, his sons fought with him; they would switch off
>>defending the bridge, so that the Etruscans couldn't just tire him
>>out.
>>
>>The Horatii were among the great heroes of Rome, so I'm surprised
>>Hobbes would get that wrong.
>
>Accounts vary, but none of the sources I can find in a quick search
>say that Horatius Cocles was accompanied by sons. Are you thinking
>of the triplet Horatii who fought the Curatii of Alba Longa? They
>were much earlier.
Ah. You know, I believe I am. Oops.
Been thirty years since I read up on this.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
I'm selling my comic collection -- see http://www.watt-evans.com/comics.html
I'm serializing a novel at http://www.watt-evans.com/realmsoflight0.html
== 22 of 25 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 23 2009 9:01 pm
From: Juho Julkunen
In article <7n0d3iF3ji2p3U1@mid.individual.net>, Marko Amnell
(marko.amnell@kolumbus.fi) says...
>
> "Juho Julkunen" <giaotanj@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> MPG.25751ee94da6b92f989819@news.kolumbus.fi...
> > In article <7n05k1F3juaajU1@mid.individual.net>, Marko Amnell
> > (marko.amnell@kolumbus.fi) says...
> >>
> >> "David Johnston" <david@block.net> wrote in message
> >> 42mlg5hgafqibgnm9klgj4qn6plul3sbrg@4ax.com...
> >> > On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:42:42 +0200, "Marko Amnell"
> >> > <marko.amnell@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>"Endymion9" <endymion91@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >> >>iL2dnWa7dtAYbpTWnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> >> >>> "Patok" <crazy.div.patok@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >>> news:he83co$arv$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> >> >>>> Endymion9 wrote:
> >> >>>>> I had never heard of Fritz Leiber of Fahryd and the Grey Mouser
> >> >>>>> until
> >> >>>>> I
> >> >>>>> began playing D&D and heard that those books were an influence.
> >> >>>>> Immediately went out and read the entire series and loved them.
> >> >>>>> Always
> >> >>>>> grateful to D&D for that.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Thanks to you and Mike! Leiber was the only one I had never
> >> >>>> heard
> >> >>>> of,
> >> >>>> and had not tried to read. I'll give him a try, now.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Fafhryd and the Grey Mouser are the anti-Conan. I had just read
> >> >>> several
> >> >>> of Robert E. Howard's books (which I loved) before reading Lieber.
> >> >>> Whereas Conan can beat 40 men with swords all by himself, Fafyhrd or
> >> >>> the
> >> >>> Mouser can't beat two adequate swordsmen by themselves. That and
> >> >>> Lieber's
> >> >>> humor are the big differences in those books, which as I said, I love
> >> >>> both
> >> >>> kinds. Don't prefer one over the other.
> >> >>
> >> >>REH is actually more realistic.
> >> >
> >> > No, he really isn't.
> >> >
> >> > A master swordsman can
> >> >>defeat many less skilled opponents in combat. To quote
> >> >>Miyamoto Musashi in _The Book of Five Rings_:
> >> >>
> >> >>"If he attains the virtue of the long sword, one man can beat
> >> >>ten men.
> >> >
> >> > If he's wearing armour and the ten men are untrained peasants.
> >> > Otherwise not a bloody hope.
> >>
> >> Miyamoto Musashi was one of the greatest swordsmen of
> >> all times. On what basis do you question his opinion?
> >> You've probably never even held a real sword in your
> >> hands. Your experience with combat is limited to
> >> rolling twenty-sided dice.
> >>
> >> Also, the Roman Legions regularly defeated enemy armies
> >> of warriors that were several times larger, winning due
> >> to superior discipline and training.
> >
> > They often took a beating, too. But it is utterly irrelevant since they
> > were fighting in organized units rather than singly.
> >
> > If you are a lone swordsman against multiple opponents, you are almost
> > certainly done for, no matter how good you are. Chiefly because you
> > only have one sword and can only face one direction.
>
> That is absolutely not true. You are completely ignoring
> movement in combat.
No, I'm not. You can still only face one direction at a time, and
you're opponents can move too. To flank you, for example.
> In fact, there are many examples from
> military history in which a single warrior defeated a large
> number of opponents.
I don't doubt it. That's why I wrote "almost certainly".
Cherrypicking a handful of counterexamples of questionable authenticity
spread over one and a half millenia doesn't really refute that.
Here is a list of some from the book
> _Essential Militaria_ by Nicholas Hobbes (pp. 103-105).
> I will exclude the cases in which the lone warrior stood
> on a bridge, thus forcing all of his opponents to attack
> from the same direction.
I see you also excluded other impressive feats listed in the book:
"Superman: Demolished the Siegfried line before arresting Hitler in the
Eagle's Nest and flying him to Geneva to face trial for war crimes."
> "Chorsamantis the Avar: During the siege of Rome
> in AD 538, the warrior became maddened by drink
> and wounds and rode out alone to the barbarian
> camp. He was confronted by twenty enemy horsemen,
> whom he dispatched before being overwhelmed.
>
> "Sir William Marshall (1146-1219): By common
> consent the greatest warrior of his age. His first
> engagement was the Battle of Drincourt in 1167
> where, though his warhorse was killed beneath
> him, he managed to defeat an estimated forty other
> knights in succession without pause.
"In succession" does not suggest "at the same time".
Presuming, of course, that happened. The source for much of his
exploits seems to be rather suspect biography by his son.
> "Pedro Francisco (died 1831): The 6ft 6ins, 280 lb
> Portuguese American was the most famous private
> soldier of the Revolutionary War. In 1779 Francisco
> captured the British flag at Stony Point, the British
> Army's stronghold on the Hudson River, and during
> one short engagement killed eleven enemy troops
> using his 6-foot-long broadsword. George Washington
> said that 'Without him we would have lost two crucial
> battles, perhaps the War, and with it our freedom. He
> was truly a One-Man Army.'"
Good for him.
--
Juho Julkunen
== 23 of 25 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 23 2009 9:05 pm
From: Juho Julkunen
In article <bsfmg5dlbsatgf295rdu4mo19036o40srn@news.eternal-
september.org>, Lawrence Watt-Evans (lwe@sff.net) says...
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 03:15:38 +0200, "Marko Amnell"
> <marko.amnell@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>
> >If we allow cases where the lone warrior was defending a
> >bridge so that his attackers could only attack him from a single
> >direction, then there are some other famous cases of a
> >single warrior defeating many opponents. It is by no
> >means clear that in all the cases the opponents approached
> >in a single file. It is entirely possible that the lone defender
> >had to face two or three (or even more) opponents at the same
> >time, but they all did approach from the same direction. Here
> >are these cases from _Essential Militaria_ by Nicholas Hobbes.
> >
> >"Horatius: The Roman sentry on the Tiber River who in
> >508 BC held off the Etruscan army singlehandedly, long
> >enough for his comrades to destroy the crossing.
>
> Um... that's not right. First off, he wasn't really a sentry, but
> more importantly, his sons fought with him; they would switch off
> defending the bridge, so that the Etruscans couldn't just tire him
> out.
>
> The Horatii were among the great heroes of Rome, so I'm surprised
> Hobbes would get that wrong.
I can't seem to find good info on Mr. Hobbes, but he appears to be a
sports journalist. That might have something to do with it.
--
Juho Julkunen
== 24 of 25 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 23 2009 9:13 pm
From: Juho Julkunen
In article <mgjmg5lhhr3di6m3k3ffo0n14ojne33cah@4ax.com>, David Johnston
(david@block.net) says...
> On 23 Nov 2009 19:18:01 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
> <tednolan>) wrote:
>
> >In article <heelo9$f94$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
> >Mike Schilling <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>David Johnston wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:42:42 +0200, "Marko Amnell"
> >>> <marko.amnell@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
> >>>> A master swordsman can
> >>>> defeat many less skilled opponents in combat. To quote
> >>>> Miyamoto Musashi in _The Book of Five Rings_:
> >>>>
> >>>> "If he attains the virtue of the long sword, one man can beat
> >>>> ten men.
> >>>
> >>> If he's wearing armour and the ten men are untrained peasants.
> >>
> >>None of whom think of sneaking up behind the swordsman and braining
> >>him with a rock.
> >>
> >
> >IIRC, that was one of the parts of _Guns Germs & Steel_ that seemed least
> >convincing -- that steel made a handful of Spaniards *so* overwhelming that
> >the conquest of Latin America was inevitable.
>
> Don't forget the guns and germs. And since the Spaniards did conquer
> again and again the technological edge probably was good for something
> or other.
Alexander counquered again and again without much of a technological
edge. He probably would have whupped Aztec ass, too. Competently led,
trained and organised force is a lot bigger advantage than any
technological edge.
Having your population devasteted by disease doesn't help, of course.
--
Juho Julkunen
== 25 of 25 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 23 2009 9:14 pm
From: Juho Julkunen
In article <0d6677c7-878d-47ff-9fe7-fb02af56e1d0@
33g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>, Mark Reichert (Mark_Reichert@hotmail.com)
says...
> On Nov 23, 1:18 pm, t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) wrote:
> > In article <heelo9$f9...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Mike Schilling <mscottschill...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >David Johnston wrote:
> > >> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:42:42 +0200, "Marko Amnell"
> > >> <marko.amn...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
> > >>> A master swordsman can
> > >>> defeat many less skilled opponents in combat. To quote
> > >>> Miyamoto Musashi in _The Book of Five Rings_:
> >
> > >>> "If he attains the virtue of the long sword, one man can beat
> > >>> ten men.
> >
> > >> If he's wearing armour and the ten men are untrained peasants.
> >
> > >None of whom think of sneaking up behind the swordsman and braining
> > >him with a rock.
> >
> > IIRC, that was one of the parts of _Guns Germs & Steel_ that seemed least
> > convincing -- that steel made a handful of Spaniards *so* overwhelming that
> > the conquest of Latin America was inevitable.
>
> You did notice the other two parts of the title, didn't you?
>
> What's with the Diamond hate these days? I remember the book getting
> a better reception here when it came out.
People are finally beginning to wise up?
--
Juho Julkunen
==============================================================================
TOPIC: INDIA SAYS "Fuck You" To Global Warming INDUSTRY! (So Do We!)
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/t/d161d1e5dcce849c?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 23 2009 3:29 pm
From: "Arindam Banerjee"
"Cwatters" <colin.wattersNOSPAM@TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> wrote in message
news:CZKdnefMjvbpNJfWnZ2dnUVZ8r2dnZ2d@brightview.co.uk...
>
> "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1234@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:UMnOm.56854$ze1.12950@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> The reason why Indian glaciers are not melting
>
> India may deny it's due to global warming but even they admit they are
> melting...
A contradictory statement! Could be, the westernised Indian scientists are
following the western line of thought and the genuine Indian scientists,
depending upon facts and honesty, are stating a contrary opinon.
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/17/science/earth/17glacier.html
> Quote: "A recent study by the Indian Space Research Organization, using
> satellite imaging to gauge the changes to 466 glaciers, has found more
> than a 20 percent reduction in size from 1962 to 2001".
Proves nothing. Any statement can be made in Usenet, any scientist or
scientific organisation could be corrupt... When the whole scientific
establishment being fully einsteinian is thus corrupt to the core, why
should they be given more credibility than politicians or fanciful
novelists? Why should their opinion have more worth than those of sexy
celebrities?
It may well be that the Himalayan glaciers are melting more than usual, but
the point is that they are not melting as fast as those in Europe or USA,
where the stratosphere is far more polluted from the carbon dioxide formed
by the engines of high flying jet planes. While I thank you for answering
to my post, I also note that you have overlooked my main point.
There seems to be a difference in opinion regarding the icy state of
Antarctica (over which I suppose there are comparatively few jet plane
flights). According to some studies, there is more ice forming there than
before. According to another, there is less ice forming there. When such
simple statements are made, with no effort made to show exactly how those
conclusions are formed, there is no longer any science involved. Only
politics and dogma, with all sorts of parasites trying their best to grab
public moneys.
If it is conclusively shown that the ice on Antarctica is not melting, then
there is no such thing as GLOBAL warming. There is now only LOCAL warming,
caused by more intense pollution of the stratosphere in those areas, with
carbon dioxide. Of course, global warming will happen when jet planes fly
everywhere with equal pollution; trees everywhere are cut down; more carbon
dioxide pumped out on earth... This is unfortunately the undisguised action
path of the abominable Garg, currently ruling the planet.
Take NZ for instance - they still have glaciers there, although they have
been receding. When we correlate their rate of decrease with the amount of
pollution in the stratosphere, we will get a factor, and see how it
correlates with similar measurements around Alaska, Greenland, etc.
The political conclusion is: if a third world country does burn carbon, but
creates greenery around to absorb the carbon dioxide, then it should not be
bound by carbon laws. Carbon dioxide on earth is produced mainly by the
Middle East, as they have no greenery to absorb the horrible flames they
produce from their refineries. It is the unabsorbed carbon dioxide from
such refineries that goes up with the winds to the higher altitudes, and
thus cause global warming along with of course the waste from the polluting
jet engines. Countries like India that need to be technologically
developed, should not be arm-twisted on spurious environmental grounds, and
for basically political reasons.
Of course it is bad to produce more carbon dioxide than necessary - so the
best solution is to use hydrogen as fuel. The Hydrogen Transmission
Network, as a far cheaper, greener, better alternative to high voltage
transmission will make this possible.
Arindam Banerjee
Hampton Park, Australia.
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.arts.books"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.arts.books+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
Has laoreet percipitur ad. Vide interesset in mei, no his legimus verterem. Et nostrum imperdiet appellantur usu, mnesarchum referrentur id vim.
0 comments:
Post a Comment